Talking Politics | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • If you are having trouble logging in to the forum please contact admin@puntroadend.com // When reseting your password or awaiting confirmation please check your junk/spam emails.
  • IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.

Talking Politics

Brodders17

Tiger Legend
Mar 21, 2008
11,883
1,113
No worries, just an opinion.

Agree with David's main point, but double negatives are hard to get your head around sometimes.
:)

i think the point is the current system does not provide incentive to vote minor, but it does remove the disincentive- the fear of a wasted vote.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Sintiger

Tiger Legend
Aug 11, 2010
12,598
2,536
Camberwell
Yes, less disincentive.

The thing is that if you vote for a candidate who is unlikely to win in a first past the post voting system your vote is effectively wasted.

Easiest to understand with an example.

Let's say you voted Green in an election with the following result:
Green: 50 votes
ALP: 10,500 votes
Libs: 10,510 votes

In a first past the post voting system the Libs win.

In a preferential voting system, no candidate won 50% + 1 votes (that would be 10,531 votes). So, the Green candidate drops out and their second preferences are distributed. If, for example, their second preferences went 40 to ALP and 10 to Lib (they never go 100% one way) then the ALP wins.

Preferential is better because in the first past the post example above most of the electorate did not want the Lib to win nor did they prefer the Lib to the ALP. In preferential more than half the electors either wanted the ALP to win or preferred the ALP over the Libs.

There is a perceived disincentive to vote for an independent or minor party candidate who is unlikely to win. But this is lessened if you know you also have a preference to allocate if your first choice candidate is knocked out.

DS
All of that is absolutely true.
However sometimes people vote independent not because they think their candidate will win but because it's a sort on internal protest. Just can't reward any party with your vote, it's a sort of personal protest and peace of mind.
Without going into details I voted independent last time around and I actually emailed that candidate to learn what his views were on multiple issues. In the end I wanted my vote to represent what I believe as close as possible and neither Labor or Liberal do that for me these days.
I knew he wouldn't win but it was about me in the end
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users

DavidSSS

Tiger Champion
Dec 11, 2017
3,696
3,909
Melbourne
No worries, just an opinion.

Agree with David's main point, but double negatives are hard to get your head around sometimes.

I get what you are saying but I think it is more of a lessening of the disincentive than an increase in an incentive.

Anyway not a big issue.

Wait until we debate proportional rep in the upper house, and the way the major parties have tried to tie it up so they are less likely to lose out to micro parties.

DS
 

DavidSSS

Tiger Champion
Dec 11, 2017
3,696
3,909
Melbourne
All of that is absolutely true.
However sometimes people vote independent not because they think their candidate will win but because it's a sort on internal protest. Just can't reward any party with your vote, it's a sort of personal protest and peace of mind.
Without going into details I voted independent last time around and I actually emailed that candidate to learn what his views were on multiple issues. In the end I wanted my vote to represent what I believe as close as possible and neither Labor or Liberal do that for me these days.
I knew he wouldn't win but it was about me in the end

That may be the case, but would you do the same in a very marginal seat with first past the post voting? Under that system your vote and a few others may be the difference between one or the other major party winning the seat.

If an independent has no chance of winning you can safely vote for them even if you disagree with a lot of what they are saying in a preferential system just as a way to send a message to the majors.

Personally I think preferential is a better system but I would make it optional preferential.

DS
 

antman

Tiger Legend
Nov 25, 2004
20,084
5,286
I get what you are saying but I think it is more of a lessening of the disincentive than an increase in an incentive.

Its the stylistic pedant in me, that's all. I get there is a subtle distinction between an increased incentive and a lessened disincentive... :cool:
 

Sintiger

Tiger Legend
Aug 11, 2010
12,598
2,536
Camberwell
That may be the case, but would you do the same in a very marginal seat with first past the post voting? Under that system your vote and a few others may be the difference between one or the other major party winning the seat.

If an independent has no chance of winning you can safely vote for them even if you disagree with a lot of what they are saying in a preferential system just as a way to send a message to the majors.

Personally I think preferential is a better system but I would make it optional preferential.

DS
I agree. I don’t like first last the post.
Don’t know what I would do but thankfully don’t have to decide
 

Ridley

Tiger Legend
Jul 21, 2003
12,549
5,141

Federal ICAC already.
100% agree. Time to get the snouts out of the trough.

As a taxpayer I am sick and tired of subsidising the incompetence and corruption of politicians and bureaucrats in both federal and state levels of government.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users

Tigers of Old

Proud of our Club.
Jul 26, 2004
66,731
6,706
www.redbubble.com
100% agree. Time to get the snouts out of the trough.

As a taxpayer I am sick and tired of subsidising the incompetence and corruption of politicians and bureaucrats in both federal and state levels of government.


It's stealing is what it is. Stealing from taxpayers. Criminal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

TT33

GO TIGES!!!
Feb 17, 2004
4,352
1,000
Melbourne
100% agree. Time to get the snouts out of the trough.

As a taxpayer I am sick and tired of subsidising the incompetence and corruption of politicians and bureaucrats in both federal and state levels of government.



The current Federal Govt. has to be the most corrupt Govt this country has ever had. NOTHING is beyond them.

Absolutely disgusting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users

larabee

#13!
Jun 11, 2010
2,048
1,121
Tigerland

Another sports rort. This is tiresome.
and the government has made cuts to the Australian National Audit Office's budget - $112M last year to $98M this year - after the Auditor General had previously warned that the agency would have to cut the number of audits it can conduct each year without a funding increase.
so maybe we won't be seeing (or be made aware of) any of this type of pork barreling in the future...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users

Brodders17

Tiger Legend
Mar 21, 2008
11,883
1,113
and the government has made cuts to the Australian National Audit Office's budget - $112M last year to $98M this year - after the Auditor General had previously warned that the agency would have to cut the number of audits it can conduct each year without a funding increase.
so maybe we won't be seeing (or be made aware of) any of this type of pork barreling in the future...
In fairness, they had to make up for the extra $25m they gave to their developer mate for land for the airport in NSW.
 

MB78

I can have my cake and eat it too
Sep 8, 2009
6,794
409
and the government has made cuts to the Australian National Audit Office's budget - $112M last year to $98M this year - after the Auditor General had previously warned that the agency would have to cut the number of audits it can conduct each year without a funding increase.
so maybe we won't be seeing (or be made aware of) any of this type of pork barreling in the future...
We need their funding tripled. And we need to start with who owns or controls water rights, as that will weed out the worst of them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user